The Employment Non-Discrimination Act stands as one of the most contested legislative proposals in American history. The Act will make it illegal for employers to fire or refuse to hire gay, lesbian and transgendered employees. Though it’s been squashed in the past, openly gay representative Barney Frank and his allies will reintroduce the controversial measure this afternoon. The HRC-endorsed press release reads:
On Tuesday, April 24, at 1:00 p.m., Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; and Chris Shays, R-Conn., will introduce the bipartisan Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill addresses discrimination in the workplace by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on the personâ€™s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The release goes on to explain that it’s still legal to fire gays in thrity-three states and trangendered persons get the short end of the stick in forty-four. Meanwhile, the proposed law’s Iowan couson isn’t as potent as some people would prefer, largely for political reasons. The Des Moines Register reports that the bill will allow employers to enforce gendered dress codes, thus placating hesitant Republicans.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Democrat from Des Moines, said Monday night that the proposal could be debated as soon as Wednesday.
The deciding factor could be a provision that allows employers to maintain dress codes as they see appropriate, McCarthy said. That change could help some Republicans support the idea, which would create enough support for the proposal to pass.
“If that’s something that folks need on their side of the aisle in order for them to unlock their people, then that’s something we’re willing to accept,” McCarthy said.
Poor trannies. Always getting the short end of the stick…
Despite the suggested alterations, House Minority Leader Christopher Rants hoped to eradicate gendered protections.
…He said, it must exclude behavior of a person from protection related to gender identity. The original bill protected discrimination based on the “appearance, expression or behavior of a person regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth.”
In addition, Rants said, the proposal must not be used to nullify Iowa’s marriage laws.
“The amendment has more to it than dress codes. It makes changes to the definition of gender identity,” Rants said. “I’ve got Republicans that will probably vote for the bill.”
Anything so long as they can still discriminate. What’s the point of politics if you don’t have the right to shit on other people’s rights, right?
(Note: As reader TJ points out, the original entry compressed the federal bill and Iowa’s bill. Sorry for that confusion. Regardless, the Iowan logic still stinks. TJ doesn’t, though. Thanks, dude. We bet even your shit smells like roses.)